I was talking to a newly minted AFF I that had attended one of my SL ICC courses last fall, and we discussed this at length.

Here is what we came up with.

SL is simply not as sexy as AFF. Sl usually entails 3 students in a Cessna going to 3500'. Put out 3 low passes, make sure the bags are safe under the pilots seat, and get out for a low h&p. That is if you have the energy(or time),I usually ride the Cessna down and get ready for the next load of sl's. Plus making sure you have someone on the radio that can deal with more than one student canopy in the air at one time.

The pros of the SL progression are that people that went through sl are usually better canopy pilots,can actually spot the a/c, and since sl usually entails multiple passes at a low altitude,the students are much better with spacial awareness in a small a/c, and as such do a much better job of protecting their handles, gear, and other peoples gear in tight quarters because they have had to move around on the floor of the Cessna. Because the sl program starts with 3500' exits, people are much more comfortable exiting at 3500'(or lower).

How many days do you get at your dz where the cloud base is 4k, but below that it is clear and pretty and jumpable. In central and northern Fl we get quite a few. We have had newer jumpers come to the dz from some of the bigger dz's,and want to do their 55 and 35 exits. I love observing the look af stark terror when the door pops open and they reaize they can see their car from altitude. And seeing the confidence level climb when they realize that you CAN safely skydive from below 13.5k. Plus, as instructors, we are afforded the luxury of spending lots of time flying around at 3500 with the door open, and making sure they understand, and have the ability to communicate with the pilot, and know how to properly spot for the load.

Plus, some guys(used loosely) really want to do it on their own. No one strapped to them, and no one holding on to them. I hope enough people realize that SL is a valuable tool to have available to teach people to jump out of airplanes.

Some students can simply not process, retain,and use all the information we present at the AFF FJC. It is a huge amount to injest. After all, we are making them drink from a fire hydrant of information. It is also easier for student to swallow the knowledge that they have to repeat a jump when the jump costs $50 or $60 as opposed to $175.

I hope enogh people see the light that sl is good for this sport.

It is good for the student, it is good for the instructors, and it is good for the dzo's bottom line at the end of the day. Sending up a few loads to 3500' in the Cessna is better than said Cessna sitting in the hanger all day while we fly the turbine.

I chose AFF for the same reason I didn't want to do a tandem first. Those jumps might be more expensive, but they are also your first experiences skydiving.

While I don't know much past the basics of static line, I also think that more coaching and experience before getting your license would be safer and more preferable.

What? Are you saying you believe AFF packs more coaching/experience into getting your license than SL? The requirements for the A license are the same, no matter which method you go through. Read up a little bit about SL, theres tons of threads here about it.

I never understood why someone would want to pay $200-$300 for the first 8 jumps, then still do coach jumps for the next 17.

You don't have to - I think I did 4 of 5 coach jumps to complete the A card requirements. (The rest were jump and have some fun - first solos without circus stunts to perform, first tailgate exits at a boogie, etc) Some DZs do have coaches for the rest of the progression, but in those cases, they're getting a lot more training than is required.

Having worked on DZs that offered both for years, I do believe that AFF students are better flyers at 25 jumps than those who go standard progression.

I'll give you that, but I'll argue that S/L-IAD students are better canopy pilots in those 25 jumps.

We don't have a whole lot of people dying in freefall these days you know.....

I'd really favor a hybrid program.....a couple tandems focusing on canopy work, and initial fear reduction, then 3 or 4 S/L-IAD jumps for canopy skills followed by 4 or 5 AFF levels. Why should we pressure a novice to learn so many aspects on one jump? Many of them are overwhelmed to the point that instructors de-emphasize canopy work, and focus on just the freefall to "get the student through". The student never gets that needed canopy work and specific briefings, never is given the opportunity to focus on just canopy flight.

That there is what really 'killed' SL: The attitude of experienced jumpers and the novice needing to be seen as cool.

I've read this thread and skipped over most of the posts made by those who can only see one side of the argument. From the student's perspective, there IS no best training method. Some students will perform better with SL, others with AFF. Besides which, students from both methods will experience their own hiccups down the line. For SL, the first freeefall from 12k is just as terrifying as the first CP from 3.5k is to AFF. AFF might produce better freefallers, but SL could produce better canopy flyers. In the end it's all the same and ideally it should be up to the student to decide which method appeals to them most. In practice....

I agree that there is less stuff to concentrate on without the freefall aspect but they aren't exposed to more canopy experience on the first few jumps from what i can see as they ext at 3.5? where as aff deploy at 5/6 then usually continue at around 4.5 after aff untill off their consols.

I guess the (perceived) difference lies in the fact that the AFF-er has just had that overwhelming freefall 'happen to them', if you'll excuse the phrasing, while the SL-er only has the canopy ride to focus on.

Mind you, I am not saying that either method is superior to the other, just that both place the accent on different stuff.

While we all agree that it would be foolish to drop S/L from a fast turbine like a King Air, Twin Otters and Caravans can be slowed down to safely drop S/L. The question becomes: "Is the DZO willing to WASTE expensive engine hours to drop S/L?"

Bad Lippspringer bought the first Kodiak (similar to Caravan) specifically to haul S/L.

Some students can simply not process, retain,and use all the information we present at the AFF FJC. It is a huge amount to ingest. After all, we are making them drink from a fire hydrant of information. It is also easier for student to swallow the knowledge that they have to repeat a jump when the jump costs $50 or $60 as opposed to $175.

That is the biggest difference between S/L and AFF. S/L dishes out new information in small doses, doses mall enough that students can easily absorb them. Remember that different students can absorb different amounts of information on different days.

The ideal training program incorporates the best parts of tandem, S/L, wind tunnel, AFF and coaching. Tandem is a great way to get through the sensory over load of the their first jump. S/L is great at teaching the basics of landing patterns. Wind tunnels are the best way to teach freefall stability and the basics of freefall turns. AFF puts it all together. Coaching completes the learning process. No one method is perfect.

>Isn't the objective of the PRCP to pull the dummy ripcord in good order, >not to "beat the deployment"?

Yes. However, if you do arch - reach - (canopy opens) - feel - pull, you really haven't demonstrated your ability to deploy a parachute while remaining stable in freefall. That's a disadvantage to direct bag, and an advantage to PCA.

My DZ uses a Student Training Program (STP) that is based off the ISP training objectives. We don't do the minimum 7 jumps and "off you go" AFF. Yes, the jumps cost more and there is more expense to the student ($2000-$2500 or so window depending on the student). A lot of people think that's the DZ pinching the students for more money. I disagree. The education that student gets for the money spent is worth it, IMHO.

I have a difficult time believing that a S/L student has any greater canopy skills than one of our STP students. We spend 18 jumps with not only freefall objectives, but canopy flight objectives on every jump. Our pull altitude for the first few jumps is 5500, not 3500, so the students are actually spending more time under canopy, at least initially. Students learn to find the DZ from a long spot at the end of jump run. They don't always exit right over the top of the DZ. Our students gain experience flying in a canopy pattern, entering and flying the pattern. I'm not saying that a S/L student doesn't do this, but I believe there is something gained from flying with more than 2 or 3 other canopies in the air. Perhaps a S/L student spends more time spotting, but we also teach that. But a student learns to spot a "window" for jumprun, not just get out over the DZ.

I guarantee that our average student at 25 jumps will outfly the average S/L student in freefall! Bold, yes. But that's how confident I am in the program. A S/L student will spend the $$ they saved trying to catch up. We have detailed training objectives that focus on all aspects of the skydive throughout the program. There is also "student choice" dive-flows for students to focus on specific skills they need work on or want to get better at. We provide instructor video on EVERY jump (no extra charge). We provide that video to the student on DVD.

So, say what you want about initial cost. The A-license proficiency card contains "minimum" requirements. I sincerely believe our program exceeds those requirements and offers the student/customer greater value for $$ spent. If you think a S/L student at the end of 25 jumps is at the same level of skill as one of our STP students, I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree!

I agree that there is less stuff to concentrate on without the freefall aspect but they aren't exposed to more canopy experience on the first few jumps from what i can see as they ext at 3.5? where as aff deploy at 5/6 then usually continue at around 4.5 after aff untill off their consols.

If the SL program includes close attention to their students' canopy flight, that's a lot of jumps with feedback. If they essentially ignore them, it's no better than AFF, or worse since they open just above their decision height and have less spare altitude to screw around.

On the AFF side, the same economics people have talked about here often have the AFF-I doing back to backs (or triples) and any debrief may not happen for an hour or more, which is really detrimental to the process.

I have a difficult time believing that a S/L student has any greater canopy skills than one of our STP students. We spend 18 jumps with not only freefall objectives, but canopy flight objectives on every jump. Our pull altitude for the first few jumps is 5500, not 3500, so the students are actually spending more time under canopy, at least initially. Students learn to find the DZ from a long spot at the end of jump run. They don't always exit right over the top of the DZ. Our students gain experience flying in a canopy pattern, entering and flying the pattern. I'm not saying that a S/L student doesn't do this, but I believe there is something gained from flying with more than 2 or 3 other canopies in the air. Perhaps a S/L student spends more time spotting, but we also teach that. But a student learns to spot a "window" for jumprun, not just get out over the DZ.

I guarantee that our average student at 25 jumps will outfly the average S/L student in freefall! Bold, yes. But that's how confident I am in the program. A S/L student will spend the $$ they saved trying to catch up. We have detailed training objectives that focus on all aspects of the skydive throughout the program. There is also "student choice" dive-flows for students to focus on specific skills they need work on or want to get better at. We provide instructor video on EVERY jump (no extra charge). We provide that video to the student on DVD.

So, say what you want about initial cost. The A-license proficiency card contains "minimum" requirements. I sincerely believe our program exceeds those requirements and offers the student/customer greater value for $$ spent. If you think a S/L student at the end of 25 jumps is at the same level of skill as one of our STP students, I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree!

I just have to say making a blanket statement that "my students are better than yours" just seems humorous to me. Some students are just better and have more natural ability than others. Not every person learns the same and at the same level. I would gather there are varying levels of achievement from all disciplines from all drop zones.

The canopy control part is due to the fact that a s/l student has 3 or 4 jumps to every AFF jump. And the first 5 focus solely on canopy control without having an overload of information.

I am not in a debate over which program is better. Like everything in our sport there are two many factors involved and there is never a single answer to any question (other than "it depends").

What if someone had the passion to jump but couldn't afford 2-3K up front. Should they not pursue it or pursue it at a slower/less expensive rate that they can afford. Perhaps he/she won't be a super flyer at 25 jumps (who the hell is?) but he/she is pursuing their passion.